Intoxicated with his own success
Sometimes the House of Commons makes for uncomfortable viewing, much like those graphic “wildlife: raw and uncut” videos of hyenas eating wildebeest alive.
In this instance, it was the hapless Minister of National Defence who was the unfortunate victim of a parliamentary mauling over his comments that he was the “architect” of Operation Medusa, the 2006 Canadian-led offensive in Afghanistan.
Harjit Sajjan is a decorated soldier, a Lieutenant- Colonel in the Royal Canadian Regiment who was described by Brigadier- General David Fraser in a letter to the Vancouver Police Department as the “best single Canadian intelligence asset in theatre.”
He was awarded the Order of Military Merit for dedication and devotion beyond the call of duty during Medusa, where he was involved in the main assault.
He is, in my limited experience, an honourable man.
But the architect of Operation Medusa he was not, as he now admits.
He was forced to concede the fact as he apologized time and time again during question period Monday. The opposition parties, sniffing blood, called for his resignation.
Rona Ambrose, the interim Conservative leader, accused him of intentionally misleading Canadians about his service record in a fashion that people in the military call “stolen valour.”
She said he has lost the confidence of men and women in uniform and should resign. If he does not, she said Justin Trudeau should ask for his resignation.
The prime minister provided all the political cover he was prepared to, when he said Sajjan still has his full confidence.
But the law of the parliamentary jungle is such that when you’ve been weakened and are a potential liability to the pack, you’re on your own.
Noticeably, Trudeau refused to stand and defend his minister when Tom Mulcair, the NDP interim leader, piled on.
“The Minister of Defence has told a whopper about his record. That’s not something for which you apologize, it’s something for which you step down,” thundered Mulcair.
All the while, Sajjan cut a bedraggled figure, repeatedly mumbling his apology, as he was disemboweled by every Conservative MP with a military base in their riding.
“Bald- faced lie,” was the refrain that greeted him from across the aisle, as he rose to say that his comments were not intended to diminish the roles of his former colleagues.
Sympathy was in short supply after Candice Bergen, the Conservative House leader, pointed out that the minister made the “architect” claim more than once, stating during the 2015 election campaign that General Jonathan Vance, now chief of the defence staff, had once labelled him that. “That’s not a mistake, that’s a fabrication,” charged Bergen.
The Tories attempted to build the case that Sajjan is a serial offender.
They claim he misled the House when he said Canada’s allies were not upset when this country withdrew its CF-18 fighter jets from Iraq, contrary to evidence that emerged later; and that he said Canada has a “capability gap” in the number of fighter planes it needs, thereby justifying the expensive purchase of an interim fleet of Boeing Super Hornets, in contrast to the testimony of senior air force commanders.
In addition, the opposition is asking Speaker Geoff Regan to rule on whether Sajjan misled MPs when he blamed the Conservatives for cutting the tax benefits available to Canadian soldiers in Kuwait.
Then there are the questions surrounding his role in an investigation by the ethics commissioner into the torture of Afghan detainees transferred by Canadian soldiers. Sajjan, who served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan at the time, told ethics commissioner Mary Dawson a few months ago that he had no knowledge about the matter, contributing to her decision to close down the investigation. Former NDP justice critic Craig Scott has written to Dawson saying that Sajjan was in a conflict of interest by not calling an inquiry into a matter in which he may have been involved.
For a man who boasts of wearing his history on his chest, it’s a list that does not suggest meritorious service.
Much of it, of course, is trumped up by the opposition parties, who sense the prospect of unseating a government minister.
The really egregious decisions have been made in the Prime Minister’s Office and handed down to Sajjan, the good soldier, who has been forced to implement policies that made no sense — the decision to purchase a stop-gap fleet of Super Hornets — or prevaricate indefinitely — the long-overdue defence review and the commitment to United Nations peace operations in Africa.
Sajjan has done all that has been asked of him, without, apparently, questioning the wisdom of reducing military spending to post- war lows (as a share of total output). Few observers believe the new defence review will rectify that i gnominious state of affairs.
As the abject performance in the House of Commons illustrated, Sajjan is a naturally prudent soldier who has succumbed to the self- aggrandizing allure of politics. In doing so, he instinctively calibrates each new situation with the question: what does this do for me? Who believes that the army reserve officer would have made the same claims of the ambitious politician?
THAT’S NOT A MISTAKE, THAT’S A FABRICATION.